TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 [the Customs Act] 2. The appellant is a incorporated and registered as a company. It is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Bars and Rods. 3. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence [DGCEI] Regional Unit, Indore, received certain intelligence alleging that M/s New Tech Abrasives Ltd., SEZ, Sector III, Pithampur [NTAL] had clandestinely removed large quantities of M.S. Ingots, from its SEZ unit without obtaining permission or giving intimation to the jurisdictional Customs authorities and without payment of customs duty. 4. Upon scrutiny of the seized documents, particularly the ledger and cash book recovered from the premises of Ganpat Singh, Machine Operator of NTAL und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight hours, and that the said goods were allegedly unloaded at the premises of the appellant, M/s Shivangi Steel, M/s Sarvshree (Ghatabillod), and M/s Rathi Iron & Steel. 7. A show cause notice dated 27.05.2010 was issued to the appellant, proposing imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the allegation that the appellant had, by alleged acts, omissions, and commissions as set out therein, rendered himself liable to penal action under the said provision. 8. The appellant submitted a detailed reply dated 19.12.2016 and specifically contended that there existed no evidence whatsoever to establish any purchase of goods by the appellant. It was categorically asserted that the appellant had never purchased M.S. Ing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as recovered from the premises of the appellant. The officers visited the factory of the appellant on 04.12.2009, verified the stock, and scrutinised records but not a single document evidencing purchase of goods from NTAL was found. The stock of finished goods tallied with the RG-1 register, and even the alleged excess stock of raw material is the subject matter of a separate show cause notice dated 27.05.2010 which has no nexus with the present proceedings and was never linked to any alleged purchase from NTAL; (iv) The appellant denied having purchased any goods from NTAL and produced its purchase ledger accounts for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10, which conclusively demonstrate that no such transactions ever took place. These re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the appellants and the learned special counsel appearing for the department have been considered. 13. The impugned order has placed reliance upon the statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act. It has, therefore, to be examined is whether the statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act could have been relied upon if the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. In the instant case, there is nothing on the record to show that the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was followed. Thus, statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not have been relied upon. This is also what was observed by the Tribunal in M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pri....